This chapter challenges the unity of legal truth. The chapter explains that what is legally true is determined by a panel of judges or jurors, but the ways of aggregating the views of these adjudicators reflect two very different ways to understand the quest for legal truth. A mathematical analysis demonstrates that judges at the International Criminal Court that can convict with majority vote are considered as experts while jurors in the United States that need to secure a unanimous jury to convict are viewed as voters who rival each other in trying to secure the result they believe in.